Renewal audit preparation · Residential aged care (Category 6)
The AECT document checklist: the policies & evidence to have ready
When a renewal audit starts, the Commission sends the Audit Evidence Collection Tool (AECT) and asks for a set of supporting documents — policies, procedures, plans and evidence. This page reconstructs the document types a residential provider should expect to attach, where each one comes from, and what assessors actually do with it.
Read this first — what this checklist is, and what it is not
The Commission confirms the Supporting Document List exists and holds 48 document types, and the AECT workbook itself is published on the Commission's website and sent with the audit initiation email. But the list's 48 numbered items are not published in text form anywhere public — the workbook is a spreadsheet attachment, and the one sector webinar that shows the list (Anchor Excellence) shows it only as a “Sample only” image.
So this page is a verifiable reconstruction, not the Commission's numbered list. Every item below is tied to the source that requires or names it, so you can check each one yourself. The five documents actually named as AECT supporting documents in a worked example are marked with a ★. Do not treat this as the official numbering — get the real list from your own initiation pack when renewal is triggered, or via the Commission's audit guidance and resources page.
How to read the source flags
Not every document carries the same weight. The flags below separate what the Commission or the Department actually requires from what is a legal obligation sitting outside the Quality Standards, and from what is sector practice. That distinction matters when you're deciding what to fix first.
Official — required by the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission or the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing, including the strengthened Standards themselves. Act / Rules — a requirement of the Aged Care Act 2024, the Aged Care Rules 2025 or another law (e.g. state food law): a registration condition, but not necessarily one of the 48 AECT items. Funded / Sector — government-funded sector support (NATSIFACP Support Hub, ELDAC, ACIPC, ARIIA) or reputable sector practice. Useful, but not a Commission requirement. Tap any item to see what it covers and its exact source.
1The document checklist
Grouped the way providers usually hold these documents — workforce, screening and training kept apart, the Outbreak Management Plan separate from the IPC program, the nine clinical risks held as one procedure set. Counted that way, this reconstruction lists 46 Standards-related document types, plus 2 financial/prudential obligations that may sit outside the 48 (see the last group). Landing near the reported 48 is consistent with it, but not proof these are the same items. Where one of your documents covers several items, that's fine: the AECT lets you name that document and the page number (see document control).
Governance, quality & organisational systems
Mainly Standard 2 · some Standard 1The heaviest document load in the AECT sits here. This is also where the five ★ documents come from — the worked example for Outcome 1.1 (person-centred care) in the NATSIFACP Support Hub's August 2026 AECT webinar, delivered with Commission representatives in the session.
★ Person-Centred Care Policy ▾
Your overarching statement of how care is centred on the individual — their identity, culture, preferences and goals.
Source: named as an AECT supporting document in the NATSIFACP worked example for Outcome 1.1.
★ Communication & Partnering Policy ▾
How you communicate and partner with older people and their supporters in decisions about their care.
Source: named as an AECT supporting document in the NATSIFACP worked example for Outcome 1.1.
★ Quality & Safety Management Policy ▾
The policy behind your quality system — how safety and quality are governed, measured and improved across the organisation.
Source: named in the NATSIFACP worked example for Outcome 1.1; the quality system itself is required by the strengthened Standards, Outcome 2.3 (Department, August 2025).
★ Assessment & Planning Policy ▾
How each person's needs, goals and preferences are assessed and turned into a current, individualised care and services plan.
Source: named in the NATSIFACP worked example for Outcome 1.1; assessment and planning is required by the strengthened Standards, Outcome 3.1.
★ Partnering meeting minutes ▾
Evidence, not a policy: minutes showing partnering with older people actually happens — consumer advisory / partnering meetings, with actions and outcomes, not just attendance.
Source: named as an AECT supporting document in the NATSIFACP worked example for Outcome 1.1.
Quality system documentation + Continuous Improvement Plan (CIP) ▾
The quality system that sets accountabilities, with governing-body monitoring informed by feedback, risk, complaint and incident analysis, quality indicator data and evidence-based practice — plus regular reporting back to individuals, supporters and workers. The CIP is where improvements are tracked; assessors look for data analysis, actions and outcomes in it, not just a list of intentions.
Source: strengthened Standards, Outcome 2.3 (Department, August 2025).
Provider governance framework — charter, committee terms of reference, Quality Care Advisory Body records ▾
How the governing body is set up and oversees quality: framework or charter, committee terms of reference, governing-body membership records, and Quality Care Advisory Body (QCAB) records. Note the real-world trap: in a 2026 renewal report, a provider was found non-conforming partly because QCAB meetings were not held quarterly.
Source: strengthened Standards 2.1–2.3; Commission Provider Governance Policy (15 May 2025) and Provider governance checklist (16 Dec 2025).
Policies & procedures register / document-control procedure ▾
The register itself is evidence: one list showing every policy's owner, approval, version and review date. The Standards require policies to be current, regularly reviewed, informed by contemporary evidence-based practice, understood and accessible — and workers must be required to follow them. A policy still referencing the old 8 Standards or the Aged Care Act 1997 fails on its face.
Source: strengthened Standards, Action 2.3.7 (Department, August 2025).
Risk management system + risk register ▾
How organisational risks are identified, assessed, controlled and reviewed — with a live risk register and evidence that risk data feeds the quality system, not a document written once and shelved.
Source: strengthened Standards, Outcome 2.4 (Department, August 2025).
Incident management system (IMS) procedure, incl. SIRS reporting ▾
One system that actually works end-to-end: recognising, recording, investigating and learning from incidents, with root-cause analysis, open disclosure, and SIRS notification — Priority 1 within 24 hours; Priority 2 within 30 calendar days. A named 2026 failure mode: several policies and flowcharts that “collectively outline” incident management but don't add up to an effective system.
Source: strengthened Standards, Outcome 2.5; Commission Reportable incidents and SIRS — Provider guidelines V2.0, October 2026.
Complaints & feedback management system procedure + complaints register ▾
How complaints and feedback are welcomed, acknowledged, investigated and resolved — including open disclosure within complaints — plus the register and the analysis reported to the governing body. One system covers both the “individuals” and “workers” versions of the outcome.
Source: strengthened Standards, Outcomes 2.6a/2.6b; Commission Better practice guide to complaints handling in aged care services.
Open disclosure procedure ▾
It may sit inside your incident and complaints policies, but it must be explicit: when something goes wrong, who tells the person and their supporters, what is said (acknowledge, apologise or express regret, explain, state what will prevent recurrence), and how it's recorded.
Source: strengthened Standards 2.3.6, 2.6.3/2.6.4; Commission: providers must “embed open disclosure into their incident management and complaints systems” and “make sure their policies and procedures include and support the open disclosure process” — Open disclosure page.
Whistleblower policy + whistleblower system procedure ▾
Every registered provider must operate a whistleblower system and publish a whistleblower policy; maintaining one is a condition of registration. It sits outside the Quality Standards, so it's flagged separately here — but an audit-ready set needs it.
Source: Aged Care Rules ss 165-40 to 165-60; Act s.96 (as described in sector legal sources: Hall & Wilcox; Moores).
Information management / privacy / records procedure ▾
A secure records system covering access, accuracy, informed consent to collect, use and disclose information, the right to access, correct and withdraw consent, and integration across systems. Note: the Standards require an information management system; a standalone consumer-facing Privacy Policy is a Privacy Act 1988 expectation, not a named Standards outcome.
Source: strengthened Standards, Outcome 2.7 (Official); Privacy Act 1988 (Act / Rules).
Workforce strategy / workforce plan, incl. care minutes & 24/7 RN ▾
Staffing numbers and mix, minimum care minutes, a registered nurse on site and on duty at all times, minimising agency and contractor use, and how shortages are mitigated. Sector advice worth following: hold a version-controlled care minutes policy stating staffing mix, time allocation and shortage management.
Source: strengthened Standards 2.8.1 (Official); Ageing Australia, “Care minutes audits are coming” (Sector).
HR procedures — recruitment & pre-employment screening records, qualifications / AHPRA, position descriptions ▾
Records of pre-employment checks, contact details, qualifications and experience for every worker — kept in a screening register that includes professional registration (AHPRA) checks and aged care worker banning-register checks. Missing exactly those fields earned a real provider a non-conformance in 2026.
Source: strengthened Standards, Action 2.9.1 (Department, August 2025).
Training system procedure + training matrix / register, incl. core competency training ▾
Core matters at minimum: person-centred, rights-based care; culturally safe, trauma-aware, healing-informed care; dementia; responding to medical emergencies; the Code of Conduct, SIRS and the Quality Standards — plus supervision and performance review. The register must show role-specific training and completion dates for all training; an incomplete register is a documented 2026 finding.
Source: strengthened Standards, Actions 2.9.4–2.9.7 (Department, August 2025).
Emergency & disaster management plan, incl. business continuity ▾
Developed, implemented and developed with response partners — and regularly tested and reviewed: fire and evacuation, heatwave and natural hazards, and business continuity. Policies that omitted business continuity processes were specifically criticised in a 2026 renewal report.
Source: strengthened Standards, Outcome 2.10 (Department, August 2025).
The individual, care & services
Standards 1 & 3The documents that describe how each person's care is decided, agreed, delivered and handed over. Assessors test these against what residents and staff say at the home audit — the paper has to match the practice.
Dignity, respect & privacy system — preventing abuse & neglect ▾
A system to recognise, prevent and respond to violence, abuse, racism, neglect, exploitation and discrimination — plus practice consistent with the Statement of Rights.
Source: strengthened Standards, Action 1.2.1 and Outcome 1.2 (Department, August 2025).
Informed consent & supported decision-making procedure, incl. dignity of risk ▾
How consent is sought and recorded, how people are supported to make their own decisions, access to advocacy, and how dignity of risk is handled when a person's choice carries risk. (Real-world warning: policies supporting choice existed at one 2026 provider, but with no process to monitor their effectiveness, the outcome was still a minor non-conformance.)
Source: strengthened Standards, Actions 1.3.1–1.3.6 (Department, August 2025).
Transparency & agreements procedure + resident agreement / fees process ▾
Information given before an agreement is signed, time to consider and seek advice, consent to fee changes, accurate and transparent pricing and invoicing, and refunds where someone has been overcharged.
Source: strengthened Standards, Actions 1.4.1–1.4.7 (Department, August 2025).
Care & services plan system — assessment & planning procedure + care plan template ▾
Plans that are individualised and current, include risk strategies, are offered to the individual, and are reviewed on change, deterioration, transition or incident — not just on a cycle.
Source: strengthened Standards, Actions 3.1.1–3.1.5 (Department, August 2025).
Advance care planning procedure ▾
Discussing future treatment and care; completing or reviewing advance care documents if the person chooses; identifying the substitute decision-maker; and storing, using and sharing the documents — including at transitions.
Source: strengthened Standards, Action 3.1.6 (Department, August 2025). Free support: ELDAC toolkits (see templates below).
Delivery of care procedure — incl. equipment & aids, referrals, reablement ▾
How planned care is actually delivered day to day: safe use of equipment and aids, referrals, and reablement that supports independence.
Source: strengthened Standards, Outcome 3.2 (Department, August 2025).
Dementia care system ▾
Evidence-based recognition and care of dementia, regular review of the person's strengths and skills, and partners involved in planning.
Source: strengthened Standards, Action 3.2.6 (Department, August 2025).
Restrictive practices procedure + Behaviour Support Plan (BSP) template ▾
Restrictive practices only as a last resort: best-practice alternatives documented first, least restrictive for the shortest time, informed consent, and monitoring with regular review. A BSP must be in place and implemented as part of the person's care and services plan. The sharpest 2026 lesson: a psychotropic used as chemical restraint not aligned to the BSP on file, with reviews not documented.
Source: strengthened Standards 3.2.7; Department, Restrictive practices in aged care — a last resort.
Communication for safety & quality — clinical handover & escalation procedure ▾
Structured communication at commencement, on change or deterioration, after an incident, and at handover or transition — with correct identification of the individual, and care statements for residential care.
Source: strengthened Standards, Outcome 3.3 (Department, August 2025).
Coordination, referrals & transitions procedure ▾
How care is coordinated with other providers and services, referrals are made and followed up, and transitions into, out of and between services are planned and communicated.
Source: strengthened Standards, Outcomes 3.4 and 7.2 (Department, August 2025).
Environment & infection control
Standard 4A short list, but heavily evidenced: cleaning schedules, hand-hygiene and PPE practice, and immunisation screening records sit behind these three documents.
Service environment procedure — cleaning, maintenance, accessibility, equipment safety ▾
An environment that is routinely cleaned and well maintained; safe, welcoming and fit for purpose; accessible; with equipment that is safe, clean and well maintained.
Source: strengthened Standards, Outcome 4.1b (Department, August 2025).
Infection prevention & control (IPC) system / program, with a named IPC lead ▾
An IPC lead who is appropriately qualified and trained; standard and transmission-based precautions covering cleaning, hand hygiene, respiratory hygiene and waste; PPE; precautions for novel viruses and outbreaks; and immunisation screening for individuals, workers and visitors.
Source: strengthened Standards, Outcome 4.2 (Department, August 2025). Free working templates: ACIPC (see templates below).
Outbreak Management Plan (OMP) ▾
Kept separate from the IPC program: the plan for declaring and managing an outbreak, with roles, communication, cohorting and escalation — and evidence it has been stress-tested, not just written.
Source: Commission, Outbreak Management Plan – key features and OMP – stress testing outline (30 Jan 2025), via the Quality Standards Resource Centre.
Clinical care
Standard 5The clinical governance framework leads this group — and note who has to own it: the governing body sets the priorities, endorses the framework and monitors clinical safety and quality. The nine high-impact risks under Outcome 5.5 can be one policy with nine chapters, or nine procedures — either way, each risk needs its own procedure-level content.
Clinical governance framework (governing-body endorsed) ▾
Governing body sets clinical priorities, endorses the framework and monitors performance; scope of practice; agreed roles and protocols with health practitioners; direction for digital clinical information systems. Free build tools exist — the Commission's clinical governance toolkit and the ACSQHC 2026 model guide with a planning template (see templates below).
Source: strengthened Standards, Outcome 5.1 (Department, August 2025).
Antimicrobial stewardship system ▾
How antimicrobial use is governed and reviewed so antibiotics are used appropriately and resistance is minimised.
Source: strengthened Standards, Action 5.2.1 (Department, August 2025).
Infection control in clinical care — aseptic technique & invasive devices ▾
The clinical side of IPC: aseptic technique and the safe management of invasive devices and catheters. Distinct from the Standard 4 environment/IPC program.
Source: strengthened Standards, Action 5.2.2 (Department, August 2025).
Medication management system procedure ▾
Medicines information; an up-to-date medicines list at transitions; safe administration including swallowing and crushing; documentation including PRN reasons; medication reviews at commencement, transitions, annually, and on change, polypharmacy, a new medicine or an adverse event; allergy documentation; high-risk medicines, including reducing inappropriate psychotropic use; TGA adverse-event reporting; and regular review of the system itself. In Victoria the policy must also satisfy state drugs-and-poisons law on who may administer.
Source: strengthened Standards, Outcome 5.3; Department, Guiding Principles for Medication Management in Residential Aged Care Facilities; Victorian Department of Health medication administration guidance (June 2026).
Comprehensive care / clinical assessment procedure ▾
Comprehensive assessment on commencement, at intervals and on change; GP medical assessment; frailty; multidisciplinary coordination; after-hours and urgent care access; and notification when incidents or changes occur.
Source: strengthened Standards, Outcome 5.4 (Department, August 2025).
High-impact / high-prevalence clinical risk procedures — the nine named risks ▾
One procedure (or chapter) for each: choking & swallowing; continence; falls & mobility; nutrition & hydration; mental health; oral health; pain; pressure injury & wounds; sensory impairment. Each needs its own assessment, prevention, escalation and review content — a single generic “clinical risk” paragraph won't evidence nine outcomes.
Source: strengthened Standards, Outcome 5.5 (Department, August 2025).
Cognitive impairment procedure — delirium, dementia, changed behaviours ▾
Identifying and minimising precipitants of changed behaviour, and responding to clinical and other causes — the clinical companion to the dementia care system under Standard 3.
Source: strengthened Standards, Outcome 5.6 (Department, August 2025).
Palliative care & end-of-life care procedure, incl. last days of life ▾
Recognising when someone is approaching end of life; end-of-life planning conversations; comfort and dignity; anticipatory medicines available 24 hours; and minimising unnecessary hospital transfer, in line with the person's preferences.
Source: strengthened Standards, Outcome 5.7 (Department, August 2025). Free support: ELDAC toolkits (see templates below).
Food, nutrition & the residential community
Standards 6 & 7 · Category 6 onlyStandard 6 is evidence-hungry: sector guidance lists what auditors may ask for — nutrition and safety policies, care plans, menus, meal charts, staff rosters, audits, risk assessments, feedback logs, incident data and continuous improvement plans.
Food & drinks partnering and monitoring system ▾
Partnering with individuals on food and drink, and monitoring satisfaction, intake, health impact and evidence-based practice — with the monitoring feeding continuous improvement.
Source: strengthened Standards, Outcome 6.1 (Department, August 2025).
Nutrition, hydration & dining assessment procedure ▾
Assessing and reassessing each person's needs, preferences and dining needs, and the clinical issues affecting eating and drinking — with a protein- and calcium-rich focus.
Source: strengthened Standards, Action 6.2.1 (Department, August 2025).
Menu / food provision procedure + current menus, incl. texture-modified ▾
Menus designed in partnership, with chef/cook and Accredited Practising Dietitian (APD) input, and reviewed at least annually through a menu and mealtime assessment by an APD — plus real choice of what, when, where and how people eat, with snacks and water available at all times. The free Menu and Mealtime Review Program (see templates) directly evidences the annual APD review.
Source: strengthened Standards, Outcome 6.3 (Department, August 2025).
Food safety program ▾
Required by state/territory food law and referenced in the Commission's Resource Centre material on aged care food safety requirements — flagged here as a legal obligation, not a strengthened-Standards outcome title.
Source: state/territory food law; FSANZ Food Standards Code; Commission Resource Centre, Aged care centre food safety requirements.
Dining experience procedure ▾
Enough workers to support eating and drinking; prompting and physical support at the person's pace; an environment that supports reablement, social engagement and belonging; and visitors able to share food and drinks.
Source: strengthened Standards, Outcome 6.4 (Department, August 2025); audit-evidence list: Ausmed, Standard 6 — Food & Nutrition (Sector).
Daily living / lifestyle & activities procedure ▾
Meaningful activities, connections and community participation — the residential community side of the Standards, evidenced through activity programs and individual engagement, not just a timetable on a wall.
Source: strengthened Standards, Outcome 7.1 (Department, August 2025).
Transitions procedure (residential) ▾
Planned, documented and communicated moves into, out of and between services — the residential counterpart to the coordination procedure under Standard 3.
Source: strengthened Standards, Outcome 7.2 (Department, August 2025).
Financial & prudential — the parallel set
Expect separately from the AECT Standards setThese are clear legal obligations under the Aged Care Financial and Prudential Standards 2025. What could not be verified: whether they sit inside the AECT's 48 or are collected separately through prudential and financial reporting. Treat them as a parallel audit-ready set either way.
Liquidity Management Strategy (LMS) ▾
Must state the minimum liquidity amount in dollars, the factors and calculations behind it, and where and in what form the funds are held — and be regularly reviewed and updated. The Commission's prudential targeted review found exactly these elements missing in some providers' LMS documents.
Source: Commission, Prudential targeted review — Liquidity Standard.
Investment Management Strategy (IMS) + financial & prudential management system ▾
The 2025 Standards comprise the Financial and Prudential Management Standard, the Liquidity Standard and the Investment Standard. The Commission's guidance (published 17 Oct 2025, updated 4 June 2026) includes a checklist for each Standard — work through those checklists as your evidence test.
Source: Commission, Financial and Prudential Standards — guidance for providers.
2What assessors actually test
Assessors don't score the policy — they score whether the system behind it works. The Commission's own definition of conformance is a four-part test:
Establish→Implement→Monitor→Continuously improve
Minor non-conformance means “some gaps … not systemic and do not present high risk”. Major means you “have not demonstrated safe, person-centred, quality care, and the gap presents significant risk”. Every Outcome response in the AECT has five columns, and assessors test all of them:
Systems & processes
What you have established and implemented — not just written down.
Review & monitor
How you check the system is working, across every location and service. The most commonly left-thin column — and conformance needs evidence of checking, not just doing.
Practice examples
A specific, real example of the system improving one older person's care. Generic examples are a named common gap.
Innovation
Contemporary, evidence-based practice driving continuous improvement.
Supporting documents
The document numbers from the Supporting Document List that evidence this Outcome — and they must match the files actually attached.
The “good policy” profile that emerges from the Standards and the 2026 reports
- Current version — review date shown, approved by the governing body or executive, nothing referencing the old Standards or the 1997 Act.
- Mapped — the strengthened Outcome(s) and Actions it implements are named in the document.
- Owned — a named owner and clear roles.
- Monitored — a checking mechanism with a cadence (audit, register review, committee report, QI / complaint / incident data) and a CIP entry.
- Known — training and communication evidence that workers know it and are required to follow it.
- Proven — at least one de-identified, specific practice example per Outcome showing the system changing a person's care.
And remember the AECT is only Stage 1. At Stage 2, assessors test what you described against what they observe — interviews with older people and staff, and observation of care. Sector shorthand for it: the central policy (AECT), local proof it's in use (CDECT), and a nurse's interview answer that matches the policy — break that thread and the finding follows.
How policies scored poorly in real 2026 renewal audits
All examples below are from published Commission final assessment reports (2026 renewal audits, Category 6) or the NATSIFACP webinar's common-gaps list. Providers are not named here; each links to its public report.
| Failure mode | What happened |
|---|---|
| Policy described; implementation & review not described | “Describing that a policy exists, but not how it's implemented or reviewed in practice” and “missing the review and monitor column” are listed common gaps.NATSIFACP Support Hub webinar, “Common gaps we see” |
| Policies in place, but no monitoring of effectiveness | Provider A, Outcome 1.3 — minor non-conformance: “The provider has policies in place to support older peoples' choices but does not demonstrate there are processes in place to ensure these systems are monitored for effectiveness.” The CIP was also not provided in the response.Published final assessment report (PDF) |
| Fragmented documents that don't add up to a working system | Provider B, Outcome 2.5 — incident management sat in “several policies and flowcharts that collectively outline the incident management system. However, this did not result in effective incident management”: gaps in root-cause analysis, learning from incidents, and management understanding of SIRS.Published final assessment report (PDF) |
| Practice contradicts the plan on file | Provider C, Outcome 3.2 — a psychotropic administered as chemical restraint “not aligned with an older person's behaviour support plan”, with effectiveness reviews not documented. The provider's later response failed because no documentary evidence showed staff education, care-plan updates or communication with supporters.Published final assessment report (PDF) |
| Governance artefacts with no analysis, actions or outcomes | Provider D, Outcome 2.3 — QCAB “meetings are not held quarterly. Their CIP documentation lacks detail of actions and outcomes, and policies do not include business continuity processes”; minutes showed no quality data analysis or trending.Published final assessment report (PDF) |
| Registers incomplete against the action's literal wording | Provider E, Outcome 2.9 — “Training register did not include role-specific training and completion dates for all training… [Worker] screening register did not include professional registration checks or aged care worker banning [checks].” Fixes were still rated non-conformance because they were “yet to be fully implemented and evaluated for effectiveness”.Published final assessment report (PDF) |
| No embedded system for evidence-based practice | Provider F, Outcome 2.3 — minor non-conformance for “lack of an embedded system and process to ensure care and services are delivered based on contemporaneous evidence-based practice in minimising falls risks”.Published final assessment report (PDF) |
3Document control — how to fill in the list
These mechanics come from the NATSIFACP Support Hub's walk-through of the official tool; no contradicting Commission text was found. The control the Commission imposes is relational — the list number, the title you record, the attached file and the numbers you cite must all agree.
- Column D — record your document's actual title. If the evidence sits inside another document, name that document and the page number.
- Tick “Submitted” once the document is attached.
- Leave Column H blank — it's for Commission use only.
- Cite by number in every Outcome response. Each Outcome references specific document numbers — they tell assessors exactly which policies and evidence you've attached.
- Mismatched numbers are a named common gap — “document numbers that don't match the document that is attached”. Keep a shared evidence library so numbers and titles stay consistent across every Outcome.
- Start with the Guidance tab and the Supporting Document List before touching a Standards worksheet; complete one Outcome fully before moving on; and have a colleague read the AECT “as the auditor would”.
- Missing the deadline has teeth: “If you don't complete and submit it by the deadline, we can withdraw your application.” For a renewal, withdrawal puts registration itself at risk. — Commission, Audit process
- No official file-naming convention was found. Prefixing your filenames with the list number is sensible sector practice to keep everything aligned — it is not a Commission rule, and the list accommodates your titles, not the reverse.
4Free official samples, templates & worked examples
There is no official “sample policy library” for the whole set — the Commission and the Department publish frameworks, guides, checklists and a handful of true samples. Everything below is free to access online. Anything beyond this — a complete off-the-shelf policy suite mapped to the 48 — is a commercial sector product, not Commission material.
| Resource | Publisher | What it covers |
|---|---|---|
| AECT – Renewal, AECT Registration renewal guide, Pre-audit readiness checklist & CDECT | Commission | The tools themselves, the step-by-step renewal guide (Oct 2026), stage-by-stage audit expectations and evidence types. Start here. |
| Audit Evidence Collection Tool (AECT) – Renewal | Commission | The tool's resource page (published 20 May 2025, updated 9 June 2026): what the AECT collects — “your systems and processes” and “how you deliver safe and quality care to older people”. |
| Strengthened Aged Care Quality Standards (Aug 2025) + quick reference guide | Department | The authoritative text every policy must align to — intent, expectation statements, outcomes and actions, plus Standard-by-Standard guidance material. |
| Clinical governance framework toolkit | Commission | Step-by-step guide to building a clinical governance framework, organisational self-assessment tools and fact sheets. Caveat: predates the strengthened Standards — use for structure, re-map to Outcome 5.1. |
| 2026 National Model Clinical Governance — practical guide | ACSQHC | Current, template-bearing model: clinical governance framework planning template, maturity scale, foundations worksheets. Health-sector framing, adaptable to Outcome 5.1. |
| Provider governance checklist | Commission | Governance obligations by registration category, with actions and review dates (16 Dec 2025). Sits with the Provider Governance Policy and QCAB fact sheets in the Resource Centre. |
| Reportable incidents & SIRS — Provider guidelines V2.0 | Commission | October 2026 edition: reportable incident definitions, Priority 1 (24-hour) vs Priority 2 (30-day) notification, IMS expectations for Outcome 2.5. |
| Better practice guide to complaints handling + checklist | Commission | A model complaints system for Outcomes 2.6a/2.6b, including open disclosure within complaints, acknowledgement timeframes and restorative outcomes (v4, updated 28 July 2025). |
| Open disclosure — rebuilding trust after something goes wrong | Commission | When open disclosure is obligatory and how to embed it in incident and complaints systems and policies (Outcomes 2.3.6, 2.6). |
| Outbreak Management Plan — key features & stress testing outline | Commission | A section-by-section skeleton to write or quality-assure an OMP, plus a drill/stress-test method (Resource Centre, mapped to Outcomes 4.2 and 5.2). |
| Guiding Principles for Medication Management in Residential Aged Care Facilities | Department | 15 guiding principles that structure a medication management policy for Outcome 5.3 — selection, storage, dose administration aids, self-administration, administration by nurses, evaluation. |
| Menu and Mealtime Review Program | Commission + Department | Free expert menu and mealtime assessment by an Accredited Practising Dietitian — directly evidences Outcome 6.3.1's annual APD review. 2026–27 round: up to 300 places; expressions of interest closed 5 Oct 2026 and a waitlist was open at research date. 1,000 homes were reviewed in the 2024–26 rounds. |
| Partnerships in Care Agreement — Sample | Commission | One of the few true Commission sample documents, usable as a template; supports Outcomes 1.1, 1.2, 4.2, 5.2, 6.1 and 7.1 (Resource Centre). |
| ELDAC Residential Aged Care Toolkit | ELDAC (government-funded) | Free toolkits mapped to the Standards: advance care planning, palliative care, end-of-life law, forms and templates, case-conference templates (Outcomes 3.1.6, 5.7). |
| Aged Care IPC Templates and Tools | ACIPC (professional body) | Free downloadable sample/working documents “able to be used and altered”: IPC Program Plan example, IPC Risk Assessment, IPC System Example (2026), quality improvement action plan (Outcomes 4.2, 5.2). |
| Emergency preparedness in residential aged care | Victorian Dept of Health | Heatwave-ready and natural-hazards-ready resources for Outcome 2.10; the Commonwealth also advises an annual review of the emergency management plan. State equivalent: medication administration guidance (June 2026) for Outcome 5.3 in Victoria. |
Not found
No Commission- or Department-published sample policy exists for incident management, risk management, workforce, privacy, whistleblower, food safety or most clinical risks — guidance and frameworks exist; model policy text does not. If someone offers you “the Commission's sample policies” for the full set, they are selling you a commercial product.
5What couldn't be verified — stated plainly
- The verbatim 48-item list (titles and numbers). Confirmed to exist and to contain 48 types (NATSIFACP webinar, 12 Aug 2026); reproduced by Anchor Excellence only as a “Sample only” image. Its text is not publicly indexed, and the AECT – Renewal spreadsheet attachment could not be extracted. This checklist is a sourced reconstruction, not the numbered list.
- The full contents of the October 2026 AECT Registration renewal guide — its existence, purpose and distribution with the initiation email are confirmed; its full text was not extracted, and it may add document-control detail beyond what's here.
- The Pre-audit readiness checklist's contents beyond its stated purpose (key actions plus supporting resources).
- Whether the LMS, IMS and whistleblower policy sit inside the 48 or are collected through parallel processes. All are clear legal obligations; their AECT location is unconfirmed.
- Any official file-naming convention, version-numbering standard, grace period, or per-item consequence for a single missing supporting document. None was found; the consequences documented are for the AECT as a whole.
- How to get the real list legitimately: from your own audit-initiation email / Digital Audit Tool portal when renewal is triggered (the AECT is sent with the invitation to renew, up to 18 months before your expiry date), or by requesting the current AECT – Renewal file and renewal guide via the Commission's audit guidance page.
Renewal coming up?
We'll help you get the AECT and every CDECT done before the email lands.